The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
Transcript of The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
1/451
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
2/451
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
3/451
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
4/451
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
5/451
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
6/451
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
7/451
THE
SACRED
BOOKS
OF
THE
EAST
[15]
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
8/451
1:
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
9/451
THE
UPANISHADS
TRANSLATED
BY
F.
MAX
MiJLLER
PART
II
THE KAr^A-UPANISHAD
/
THE
MUiVZ>AKA-UPANISHAD
THE
TAITTIRIYAKA-UPANISHAD
THE
Bie/HADARAiVYAKA-UPANISHAD
THE
^VETA^VATARA-UPANISHAD
v'
THE
PRA^iVA-UPANISHAD
THE
MAITRAYAiVA-BRAHMAiVA-UPANISHAD
AT THE
CLARENDON PRESS
1884
\_All
rights
reserved
]
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
10/451
L
pt.
CL
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
11/451
CONTENTS.
Introduction
.
...
Ka//2a-upanishad
.
.
.
Mu
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
12/451
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
13/451
INTRODUCTION.
This
second
volume
completes
the
translation
of
the
principal
Upanishads
to
which
6'ahkara
appeals
in his
great commentary
on the
Vedanta-Sutras^,
viz, :
T.
i^T/^andogya-upanishad,
2. Talavakara
or
Kena-upanishad,
3.
Aitareya-upanishad,
4.
Kaushitaki-upanishad,
5.
Va^asaneyi
or
tja-upanishad,
6.
Ka//za-upanishad,
7.
Muw^aka-upanishad,
8.
Taittiriyaka-upanishad,
9.
Brz'hadarawyaka-upanishad,
10.
6'vetaj'vatara-upanishad,
1
1
.
Praj/Ta-upanishad.
These
eleven
have sometimes^
been called
the old and
genuine Upanishads,
though
I should
be
satisfied
to call
them the
eleven classical
Upanishads,
or
the
fundamental
Upanishads
of
the
Vedanta
philosophy.
Vidyarawya^,
in
his 'Elucidation
of
the
meaning
of
all
the
Upanishads,'
Sarvopanishadarthanubhuti-prakai-a,
con-
fines himself likewise
to
those
treatises,
dropping,
however,
the
tsk,
and
adding
the
Maitrayawa-upanishad,
of
which
I
have
given
a
translation
in
this
volume,
and
the Nrz-
si7hottara-tapaniya-upanishad,
the
translation
of which
had
to be
reserved
for
the
next
volume.
^
See
Deussen,
Vedanta,
Einleitung, p.
38.
6'ankara
occasionally
refers also
to the
Paingi, Agnirahasya,
Gabala,
and
Narayawlya Upanishads.
^
Deussen,
loc.
cit.
p.
82,
^
I
state
this
on
the
authority
of Professor Cowell.
See also
Fitzedward
Hall,
Index
to
the
Bibliography
of
the
Indian
Philosophical
Systems,
pp.
116
and
236.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
14/451
UPANISHADS.
It
is
more
difficult
to
determine
which
of the
Upanishads
were
chosen
by
5ahkara
or
deserving
the
honour
of
a
special
commentary.
We
possess
his commentaries
on the
eleven
Upanishads
mentioned
before
\
with
the
exception
of
the
Kaushitaki
^-upanishad.
We
likewise
possess
his
commen-
tary
on
the
Ma;/^ukya-upanishad,
but
we
do
not
know
for
certain
whether
he
left commentaries
on
any
of the
other
Upanishads.
Some
more
or
less
authoritative
statements
have
been
made
that
he
wrote
commentaries
on
some
of
the
minor
Upanishads,
such
as
the
Atharva^iras,
Atharva-i-ikha,
and
the
Nrzsiwhatapani^
But
as,
besides
5ahkaraHrya,
the
disciple
of
Govinda,
there
is
5ankarananda,
the
disciple
of
Anandatman,
another
writer
of
commentaries
on
the
Upa-
nishads,
it
is
possible
that
the
two
names
may
have
been
confounded
by
less
careful
copyists
*.
With
regard
to the
Nr/si;;2hatapani
all
uncertainty
might
seem
to
be
removed,
after
Professor
Ramamaya
Tarka-
ratna
has
actually published
its text
with
the
commentary
of
vSankara/^arya
in the
Bibliotheca
Indica,
Calcutta,
1871.
But
some
uncertainty
still remains.
While at the
end of
each Kha.7ida,
of
the
Nrzsi;;/ha-purvatapani
we read
that
the
Bhashya
was the
work of
the
Paramaha;^^sa-parivra-
^aka>^arya
5ri-5ankara,
the
pupil
of
Govinda,
we have
no
such
information
for the
Nrzsi;;/ha-uttaratapani,
but are
told
on the
contrary
that
the
words
^ri-Govindabhagavat
&c.
have been
added
at
the
end
by
the
editor,
because
he
thought
fit
to do
so.
This
is,
to
say
the
least,
very suspicious,
and
we
must
wait
for
further
confirmation.
There
is
another
commentary
on
this
Upanishad
by
Narayaabha//a,
the
son
of Bha//a
Ratnakara
^,
who
is
well
known as the author of
Dipikas
on
several
Upanishads.
*
They
have
been
published
by
Dr.
Roer
in
the
Bibliotheca Indica.
^
Dr.
Weber's
statement
that
5ahkara
wrote
a
commentary
on
the
Kaushitaki-
upanishad
has
been
corrected
by
Deussen,
loc.
cit.
p.
39.
^
See
Deussen,
loc.
cit,
p.
39.
*
A
long
list
of
works
ascribed to
^ankara
may
be seen
in
Regnaud,
Philo-
sophie
de
I'Inde,
p.
34,
chiefly
taken
from
Fitzedward
Hall's
Index
of
Indian
Philosophical
Systems.
^
See
Tarkaratna's
Vi^;7apana,
p.
3,
1.
5.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
15/451
INTRODUCTION.
XI
I
subjoin
a
list
of
thirty
of
the
smaller
Upanishads,
pub-
lished
by
Professor
Ramamaya
Tarkaratna
in
the
Biblio-
theca
Indica,
with the
commentaries
of
Naraya;/abha//a.
I.
^ ira-upanishadjpp.i-io; DipikabyNaraya;/a,pp.42-6o.
2.
Garbha-upanishad,
pp.
11-15
j
3.
Nadavindu-upanishad, pp.
15-17
>
4.
Brahmavindu-upanishad,
pp.
18-30
;
5.
Amrztavindu-upanishad;
pp.
21-25
;
6.
Dhyanavindu-upanishad,pp.
26-28
;
7.
Te^ovindu-upanishad,
pp. 29-30
;
8.
Yogaj-ikha-upanishad, pp. 31-32
;
9.
Yogatattva-upanishad, pp. 33-34
;
10.
Sannyasa-upanishad, pp. 35-39
;
1
1.
Aru;^eya-upanishad,
pp.
39-41
;
12.
Brahmavidya-upanishad,
pp.
197-203
;
13.
Kshurika-upanishad,
pp.
203-218
;
14.
ii'ulika-upanishad, pp. 219-228
;
1
5.
Atharvaj-ikha-upanishad, pp.
229-238
;
16.
Brahma-upanishad,
pp. 239-259
;
17.
Prawagnihotra-upanishad,
pp.
260-271
;
18.
Nilarudra-upanishad,
pp.
272-280
;
19.
Ka;///^ajruti-upanishad,
pp.
281-294;
20.
Pi;/(/a-upanishad,
pp.
295-298
;
A
21.
Atma-upanishad, pp.
299-303
;
22.
Ramapurvatapaniya-upanishad,
pp.
304-358;
23.
Ramottaratapaniya-upanishad,
PP-
359-3^4
;
24.
Hanumadukta-Rama-upanishad,
PP-
385-393;
25. Sarvopanishat-sara/^, pp.
394-404
;
26.
Ha?/^sa-upanishad,
pp.
404-416
;
27.
Paramahawsa-upanishad,
pp.
417-436
;
,,
28.
(Jabala-upanishad,
pp.
437-455
;
29.
Kaivalya-upanishad,
pp.
456-464
;
Kaivalya-upanishad,
pp.
465-479
;
Dipika
by
vSafikarananda,
30.
Garu
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
16/451
xii
UPANISHADS.
We
owe
to
the
same
editor
in
the
earlier
numbers
of
the
Bibliotheca the following
editions
:
Nr/siwhapurvatapani-upanishad,
with
commentary.
Nrzsiwhottaratapani-upanishad,
with
commentary.
Sha/X-akra-upanishad,
with
commentary
by Narayawa.
Lastly,
Hara/^andraVidyabhushawa
and Viwanatha
5astri
have
published
in the
Bibliotheca
Indica
an
edition
of
the
Gopalatapani-upanishad,
with
commentary
by
Vii-vei-vara.
These
editions
of
the
text
and
commentaries
of
the
Upanishads
are
no doubt
very
useful,
yet
there
are
many
passages
where
the text
is
doubtful,
still
more
where
the
commentaries
leave
us without
any help.
Whatever
other
scholars
may
think
of
the
difficulty
of
translating
the
Upanishads,
I
can
only repeat
what
I
have
said
before,
that
I
know
of
few
Sanskrit
texts
pre-
senting
more
formidable
problems
to
the
translator
than
these
philosophical
treatises.
It
may
be said
that
most
of
them had
been
translated
before.
No doubt
they
have
been,
and a
careful
comparison
of
my
own translation
with
those
of
my predecessors
will
show,
I
believe,
that
a small
advance,
at
all
events,
has
now
been
made
towards
a truer
understanding
of
these
ancient
texts.
But
I
know
full
well
how
much
still remains
to be
done,
both
in
restoring
a cor-
rect
text,
and in
discovering
the
original meaning
of
the
Upanishads
;
and I
have
again
and
again
had
to
translate
certain
passages
tentatively only,
or
following
the
com-
mentators,
though
conscious
all
the time that the
meaning
which
they
extract
from
the
text
cannot
be
the
right
one.
As
to
the
text,
I
explained
in
my
preface
to
the
first
volume
that
I
attempted
no more
than
to restore
the
text,
such
as
it
must
have
existed
at
the
time when
5ankara
wrote
his
commentaries. As
.Sahkara
lived
during
the
ninth
century
A.D.\
and
as
we
possess
no
MSS.
of
so
early
a
date,
all
reasonable
demands of
textual
criticism
would
thereby
seem
to
be
satisfied.
Yet,
this is
not
quite
so.
We
may
draw
such
a
line,
and
for
the
present
keep
within
It,
but
scholars
who
hereafter
take
up
the
study
of
the
^
India,
What
can
it
teach
us ?
p.
360.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
17/451
INTRODUCTION.
XUl
Upanishads
will
probably
have to
go beyond.
Where I
had
an
opportunity
of
comparing
other
commentaries,
besides
those
of
6 ankara,
it
became
quite
clear
that
they
often
followed a
different
text,
and
when,
as in
the
case
of
the
Maitrayaa-brahma;^a-upanishad,
I
was
enabled
to
collate
copies
which
came from
the
South
of
India,
the
opinion
which
I
have often
expressed
of
the
great
value of
Southern
MSS. received
fresh
confirmation.
The
study
of
Grantha
and other
Southern
MSS. will
inaugurate,
I
believe,
a
new
period
in
the
critical
treatment
of
Sanskrit
texts,
and
the
text
of
the
Upanishads
will,
I
hope,
benefit
quite
as
much
as
later
texts
by
the
treasures still
concealed in
the
libraries
of
the
Dekhan.
The
rule
which
I
have
followed
myself,
and
which
I
have
asked
my
fellow
translators to
follow,
has
been adhered
to
in
this
new
volume
also,
viz.
whenever
a
choice
has
to
be
made between
what
is
not
quite
faithful and
what
is
not
quite
English,
to surrender
without
hesitation the
idiom
rather
than
the
accuracy
of
the
translation.
I
know
that
all
true
scholars
have
approved
of
this,
and
if
some
of
our
critics
have
been
offended
by
certain
unidiomatic
expres-
sions
occurring
in
our
translations,
all I
can
say
is,
that
we
shall
always
be
most
grateful
if
they
would
suggest
trans-
lations
which
are
not
only
faithful,
but
also
idiomatic.
For
the
purpose
we
have
in
view,
a
rugged
but
faithful
trans-
lation
seems
to
us more
useful than
a smooth but mis-
leading
one.
However,
we
have
laid
ourselves
open
to
another kind
of
censure
also,
namely,
of
having
occasionally
not
been
literal
enough.
It
is
impossible
to
argue
these
questions
in
general,
but
every
translator
knows
that
in
many
cases
a
literal
translation
may
convey
an
entirely wrong meaning.
I
shall
give
at
least one
instance.
My
old
friend,
Mr.
Nehemiah
Goreh
at
least I
hope
he
will
still
allow
me
to
call
him
so
in
the
'Occasional
Papers
on
Missionary
Subjects/
First
Series,
No.
6,
quotes,
on
p.
39,
a
passage
from
the
-^//andogya-upanishad,
trans-
lates
it
into
English,
and
then
remarks that
I
had not
translated
it
accurately.
But
the fault seems to me to lie
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
18/451
xiv
UPANISHADS.
entirely
with
him,
in
attempting
to
translate
a
passage
without
considering
the
whole
chapter
of
which
it
forms
a
part.
Mr.
Nehemiah
Goreh
states
the
beginning
of
the
story
rightly
when
he
says
that
a
youth
by
name
vSveta-
ketu
went,
by
the
advice
of
his
father,
to
a
teacher
to
study
under
him.
After
spending
twelve
years,
as
was
customary,
with
the
teacher,
when
he
returned
home
he
appeared
rather
elated.
Then
the
father
asked
him:
Uta
tarn
adej-am
apraksho^
yenasmtam
j-rutam
bhavaty
amatam
matam
avi^/7ata;//
vi^;7atam
iti ?
I
translated
this
:
'
Have
you
ever
asked
for
that instruc-
tion
by
which
we hear
what
cannot
be
heard,
by
which
we
perceive
what cannot be
perceived,
by
which we
know what
cannot
be known }'
Mr.
Nehemiah Goreh
translates
:
'
Hast thou
asked
(of
thy
teacher)
for that
instruction
by
which
what
is
not
heard
becomes
heard,
what
is not
comprehended
becomes
com-
prehended,
what
is
not known
becomes
known
.^'
I shall not
quarrel
with
my
friend
for
translating
man
by
to
comprehend
rather than
by
to
perceive.
I
prefer
my
own
translation,
because
manas
is
one
side of
the
common
sensory
(anta/^kara;a),
buddhi,
the other
;
the
original
differ-
ence
between
the
two
being,
so
far
as
I
can
see,
that
the
manas
originally
dealt with
percepts,
the
buddhi
with
con-
cepts^.
But
the
chief
difference
on
which
my
critic
lays
stress is
that
I
translated
airutam,
amatam,
and
avi^;7atam
not
by
'
not
heard,
not
comprehended,
not
known,'
but
by
'
what
cannot
be
heard,
what
cannot be
perceived,
what
cannot
be
known.'
Now,
before
finding
fault,
why
did he
not
ask
himself
what
possible
reason
I
could
have
had
for
deviating
from
the
original,
and
for
translating avi^;7ata by
unknowable
or
'
Mr.
Nehemiah
Goreh
writes
aprakshyo,
and
this is
no
doubt
the
reading
adopted by
Roer in
his
edition
of
the
X'Aandogya-upanishad
in
the
Bibliotheca
Indica,
p.
384.
In
5ankara's
conamentary
also
the
same
form
is
given.
Still
grammar
requires
apraksho.
^
The
Paw^adasi
(I,
20)
distinguishes
between manas
and
buddhi,
by
saying,
mano
vimarsarupaw
syad
buddhiA
syan
nis^ayatmika,
which
places
the
difference
between
the
two
rather
in
the
degree
of
certainty,
ascribing
deliberation to
manas,
decision
to
buddhi.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
19/451
INTRODUCTION.
XV
what
cannot be
known,
rather than
by
unknown,
as
every
one
would
be
inclined to
translate
these
words at first
sight?
If
he had
done
so,
he
would
have seen in
a
moment,
that with-
out
the
change
which
I
introduced
in
the
idiom,
the
trans-
lation
would
not have
conveyed
the
sense of the
original,
nay,
would
have
conveyed
no sense at
all.
What
could
vSveta-
ketu
have
answered,
if
his
father had
asked
him,
whether
he
had
not
asked
for
that
instruction
by
which
what
is
not
heard becomes
heard,
what
is not
comprehended
becomes
comprehended,
what
is
not known
becomes
known?
He
would
have
answered,
'
Yes,
I
have
asked for
it
;
and from
the
first
day
on
which
I
learnt
the
6 iksha,
the
ABC,
I
have
every
day
heard
something
which
I had
not
heard
before,
I
have
comprehended
something
which
I
had
not
comprehended
before,
I
have
known
something
which
I
had
not known
before.' Then
why
does
he
say
in
reply,
'What
is
that
instruction?'
Surely
Mr. Nehemiah Goreh knew
that
the instruction which the father refers
to,
is the
instruc-
tion
regarding
Brahman,
and
that
in
all
which follows
the
father
tries
to
lead
his
son
by
slow
degrees
to a
knowledge
of
Brahman^.
Now
that
Brahman is
called
again
and
again
'
that
which cannot be
seen,
cannot
be
heard,
cannot be
per-
ceived,
cannot
be
conceived,'
in
the
ordinary
sense
of
these
words
;
can
be
learnt,
in
fact,
from
the Veda
only
2.
It was
in order
to
bring
out
this
meaning
that
I
translated aj-rutam
not
by
'
not
heard,'
but
by
'
not
bearable,' or,
in
better
English,
by
'what
cannot be
heardV
^
In
the
Vedanta-Sara,
Sadananda
lays great
stress
on the
fact
that
in
this
very
chapter
of the
iT/iandogya-upanishad,
the
principal
subject
of the
whole
chapter
is
mentioned both
in
the
beginning
and
in
the
end.
Tatra
prakarawaprati-
padyasyarthasya
tadadyantayor
upadanam upakramasawharam.
Yatha
K/mn-
dogj'ashash/Aaprapa^^ake
prakaraapratipadyasyadvitiyavastuna
ekam eva-
dvitiyam
(VI,
2,
i)
ityadav
aitadatmyam
idaw
sarvam
(VI,
16,
3)
ity
ante
^a
pratipadanam.
'
The
beginning
with
and
ending
with
'
imply
that the matter
to be declared
in
any
given
section is
declared
both at the
beginning
and
at
the
end thereof:
as,
for
instance,
in the
sixth
section
of
the
iT/jandogya-upanishad,
'the
Real,
besides
which
there is
nought
else'
which
is to
be
explained
in
that
section
is declared
at
the
outset
in
the
terms,
'One
only,
without a
second,'
and
at
the
end in the
terms
'
All
this consists
of
That.'
*
Vedanta-Sara,
No.
118,
tatraivadvitiyavastuno
manantaravishayikaranam.
'
See
Mund.
Up.
I,
1,6,
adresyam
agrahyam.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
20/451
XVI
UPANISHADS.
Any
classical
scholar
knows
how
often
we
must
translate
invictus
by
invincible,
and
how
Latin
tolerates
even
invictissimus,
which
we
could
never
render in
English
by
'
the most
unconquered,'
but
'
the
unconquerable.'
English
idiom,
therefore,
and common
sense
required
that
avi^;/ata
should
be
translated,
not
by
inconceived,
but
by
inconceiv-
able,
if the translation
was to
be
faithful,
and
was
to
give
to the
reader
a
correct
idea
of
the
original.
Let
us
now
examine
some
other
translations,
to
see
whether
the
translators were
satisfied
with
translating
literally,
or
whether
they
attempted
to
translate
thoughtfully.
Anquetil
Duperron's
translation,
being
in
Latin,
cannot
help
us
much. He
translates
:
'
Non
auditum,
auditum
fiat
;
et
non
scitum,
scitum
;
et
non
cognitum,
cognitum.'
Rajendralal
Mitra
translates
:
'
Have
you
enquired
of
your
tutor
about
that
subject
which
makes
the
unheard-of
heard,
the
unconsidered
considered,
and
the
unsettled
settled.?'
He
evidently
knew
that
Brahman
was
intended,
but
his
rendering
of
the
three
verbs
is
not
exact.
Mr.
Gough
(p.
43)
translates
:
'
Hast thou
asked
for
that
instruction
by
which
the
unheard
becomes
heard,
the
un-
thought
thought,
the
unknown
known?'
But
now
let
us
consult
a
scholar
who,
in
a
very
marked
degree,
always
was
a
thoughtful
translator,
who
felt
a
real
interest in
the
subject,
and
therefore
was
never
satisfied
with
mere
words,
however
plausible.
The
late
Dr.
Ballantyne,
in
his
translation
of
theVedanta-Sarai,
had
occasion
to
trans-
late
this
passage
from
the
iT/zandogya-upanishad,
and
how
did
he
translate
it?
'The
eulogizing
of
the
subject
is
the
glorifying
of
what
is
set
forth
in
this
or
that
section
(of
the
Veda)
;
as,
for
example,
in
that
same
section,
the
sixth
chapter
of
the
^//andogya-upanishad,
the
glorifying
of
the
Real,
besides
whom
there
is
nought
else,
in
the
following
terms:
Thou,
O
disciple,
hast
asked
for
that
instruction
whereby
the
unheard-of
becomes
heard,
the
inconceiv-
h y.
a''^^^
theVeddnta,
embracing
the
text
of
the
Vedanta-Sara,
Alla-
habad,
1851,
p.
69.
Vedantasara,
with
Nnsiwha-Sarasvati's
Subodhini,
and
KamatirthasVidvanmanora^^ini, Calcutta,
i860,
p.
89.
Here
we find
the
right
reading,
aprakshaA.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
21/451
'^1
INTRODUCTION.
Xvii
able
becomes
conceived,
and
the
unknowable
becomes
thoroughly
known. '
Dr.
Ballantyne
therefore
felt
exactly
what
I
felt,
that
in
our
passage
a
strictly
literal
translation
would
be
wrong,
would
convey
no
meaning,
or
a
wrong
meaning
;
and
Mr.
Nehemiah Goreh will
see
that he
ought
not
to
express
blame,
without
trying
to
find
out
whether
those
whom he
blames
for
want
of
exactness,
were
not
in
reality
more
scrupulously
exact
in
their
translation than
he
has
proved
himself
to
be,
Mr.
Nehemiah
Goreh
has,
no
doubt,
great
advantages
in
interpreting
the
Upanishads,
and when
he
writes
without
any
theological
bias,
his
remarks
are
often
very
useful.
Thus
he
objects
rightly,
I
think,
to
my
translation
of
a
sentence
in
the
same
chapter
of
the
A'/zandogya-upanishad,
where
the
father,
in
answer
to
his
son's
question,
replies
:
'
Sad
eva,
Somya,
idam
agra
asid
ekam
evadvitiyam.'
I
had
tried
several
translations
of
these
words,
and
yet
I
see
now
that the
one
I
proposed
in
the
end
is
liable
to
be mis-
understood.
I
had
translated :
'
In
the
beginning,
my
dear,
there
was
that
only
which
is,
one
only,
without a
second.'
The
more
faithful
translation would
have
been
:
'
The
beinsf
alone
was this in
the
beginning.'
But
'
the
being'
does
not
mean
in
English
that
which
is,
to
ov,
and
therefore,
to
avoid
any
misunderstanding,
I
translated
'
that
which
is.'
I
might
have
said,
however,
'
The
existent,
the
real,
the true
(satyam)
was
this in the
beginning,'
just
as
in
the
Aitareya-upani-
shad
we
read
:
'
The
Self
was
all
this,
one
alone,
in
the
beginning
\' But
in
that case I
should
have
sacrificed
the
gender,
and
this
in
our
passage
is
of
great
importance,
being
neuter,
and
not
masculine.
What,
however,
is
far
more
important,
and
where
Mr.
Nehemiah
Goreh
seems to
me
to have
quite
misapprehended
the
original
Sanskrit,
is
this,
that
sat,
to
ov,
and
atma,
the
Self,
are
the
subjects
in
these
sentences,
and
not
predicates.
Now
Mr.
Nehemiah
Goreh
translates
:
'
This
was
the
ex-
istent
one
itself
before,
one
only
without a
second
;'
and he
^
Atma
va idam
eka
evagra
asit.
[15]
b
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
22/451
Xviii
UPANISIIADS.
explains
:
'
This
universe,
before
it
was
developed
in the
present
form,
was
the
existent
one,
Brahma,
itself.'
This
cannot
be.
If
'
idam,'
this,
i.
e.
the
visible
world,
were
the
subject,
how
could
the
Upanishad
go
on
and
say,
tad
aikshata
bahu
syam
pra^ayeyeti
tat
te^o
'srz>ata,
'
that
thought,
may
I be
many,
may
I
grow
forth.
It
sent
forth
fire.'
This
can
be
said
of
the
Sat
only,
that
is,
the
Brahman
^
Sat,
therefore,
is
the
subject,
not
idam,
for
a
Vedantist
may
well
say
that
Brahman
is
the
world,
or
sent
forth
the
world,
but
not
that
the
world,
which
is
a
mere
illusion,
was,
in
the
beginning,
Brahman.
This
becomes
clearer
still
in
another
passage,
Maitr.
Up.
VI,
17,
where
we
read
:
Brahma
ha
va idam
agra
asid
eko
'nanta//,
'
In
the
beginning
Brahman
was all this.
He was
one,
and
infinite.'
Here
the
transition
from
the neuter
to
the
masculine
gender
shows
that Brahman
only
can
be the
subject,
both
in
the
first and
in
the
second
sentence.
In
English
it
may
seem
to
make
little difference
whether
we
say,
'
Brahman
was
this,'
or
'
this
was
Brahman.'
In
Sanskrit
too we
find,
Brahma khalv
idam
vava
sarvam,
'
Brahman
indeed
is
all
this
'
(Maitr.
Up.
IV,
6),
and Sarvawz
khalv
idam
Brahma,
'
all
this
is
Brahman
indeed
'
{K/ia.n.d.
Up.
Ill,
14,
i).
But
the
logical
meaning
is
always
that
Brahman was all
this,
i. e.
all that we
see
now.
Brahman
being
the
subject,
idam
the
predicate.
Brahman
becomes
idam,
not
idam
Brahman.
Thus
the
'Pa.nka.da.si,
1,
18,
says
:
Ekadaj-endriyair yuktya
j-astre;/apy
avagamyate
Yavat
kbnkld
bhaved
etad
ida;;/.fabdodita;
^agat,
which
Mr.
A.Venis
(Pandit,
V,
p.
667)
translates: 'What-
ever
may
be
apprehended
through
the eleven
organs, by
argument
and
revelation,
i.
e.
the
world
of
phenomena,
is
expressed
by
the
word
idam,
this.'
The
Pa;U'adaj-i
then
goes
on
:
Idaw
sarvam
pura
srzsh/er ekam
evadvitiyakam
Sad
evasin
namarupe
nastam
ity
Aru;;er
vaksLk.
This
Mr.
Venis
translates
:
'
Previous
to
creation,
all this
'
Sankara
says
(p.
398,
1.
5)
:
ekam
evadvitiyam
paramarthata
idam buddhi-
kale
'pi
tat
sad
aikshata.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
23/451
INTRODUCTION.
XIX
was the
existent
(sat),
one
only
without
a
second
: name and
form
were
not
:
this
is
the
declaration of
the
son
of
Arua.'
This
is
no
doubt
a
translation
grammatically
correct,
but
from
the
philosophical
standpoint
of the
Vedanta,
what
is
really
meant
is
that,
before
the
sr/sh/i
(which
is
not
crea-
tion,
but
the
sending
forth
of the
world,
and the
sending
forth
of
it,
not
as
something
real,
but
as a mere
illusion),
the
Real
alone,
i.e. the
Brahman,
was,
instead
of
this,
i.e.
instead of this
illusory
world.
The illusion
was
not,
but
the
Real,
i.e.
Brahman,
was. What
became,
or what seemed to
change,
was
Brahman,
and therefore
the
only
possible
subject,
logically,
is
Brahman,
everything
else
being
a
pre-
dicate,
and a
phenomenal
predicate
only.
If I were
arguing
with a
European,
not
with
an
Indian
scholar,
I
should venture
to
go
even
a
step
further,
and
try
to
prove
that the
idam,
in
this
and similar
sentences,
does
not
mean
this,
i. e.
this
world,
but
that
originally
it
was
intended
as
an
adverb,
meaning
now,
or
here.
This
use of
idam,
unsuspected by
native
scholars,
is
very
frequent
in
Vedic
literature,
and
instances
may
be seen
in
Boehtlingk's
Dic-
tionary.
In that case the
translation
would
be
:
'
The
real
(to
6v),
O
friend,
was here
in
the
beginning.'
This
meaning
of
idam,
however,
would
apply
only
to the
earliest
utterances
of ancient
Brahmavadins,
while
in later times
idam
was
used
and
understood
in
the
sense of
all
that
is
seen,
the
visible
uni-
verse,
just
as
iyam
by
itself
is used in the
sense
of the
earth.
However,
difficulties
of this kind
may
be
overcome,
if
once
we
have
arrived at
a
clear
conception
of the
general
drift
of
the
Upanishads.
The real difficulties
are
of
a
very
different character.
They
consist
in
the
extraordinary
number
of
passages
which
seem
to
us
utterly
meaningless
and
irrational,
or,
at all
events,
so
far-fetched
that
we can
hardly
believe that
the
same
authors
who can
express
the
deepest
thoughts
on
religion
and
philosophy
with
clearness,
nay,
with
a
kind
of
poetical
eloquence,
could
have
uttered
in
the
same breath
such
utter
rubbish. Some
of
the
sacrificial
technicalities,
and
their
philosophical
interpretations
with
which
the
Upanishads
abound,
may perhaps
in
time
assume
a
clearer
meaning,
when we shall have
more
fully
mastered
b
2
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
24/451
j-j^
UPANISIIADS.
the
intricacies
of
the
Vedic
ceremonial.
But
there
will
always remain
in
the
Upanishads
a
vast
amount
of
what
we
can
only
call
meaningless
jargon,
and
for
the
presence
of
which
in
these
ancient
mines
of
thought
I,
for
my
own
part,
feel
quite
unable
to
account.
'Yes,'
a
friend
of
mine
wrote
to
me,
after
reading
some
of
the
Sacred
Books
of
the
East,
'
you
are
right,
how
tremendously
ahead
of
other
sacred
books
is the
Bible.
The
difference
strikes
one
as
almost
unfairly
great.'
So
it
does,
no
doubt.
But
some
of
the
most
honest
believers
and
admirers
of
the
Bible
have
expressed
a
similar
disappointment,
because
they
had
formed
their
ideas
of what
a
Sacred
Book
ought
to
be,
theoretically,
not
historically.
The
Rev.
J.
M.
Wilson,
in
his
excellent
Lectures
on
the
Theory
of
Inspiration,
p.
32,
writes
:
'
The
Bible
is
so
unlike
what
you
would
expect
;
it
does
not
consist
of
golden
sayings
and
rules
of
life
;
give
explanations
of
the
philosophical
and
social
problems
of
the
past,
the
present,
and
the
future;
contain
teachings
immeasurably
unlike
those
of
any
other
book
;
but
it
con-
tains
history,
ritual,
legislation,
poetry,
dialogue,
prophecy,
memoirs,
and
letters
;
it contains
much
that
is
foreign
to
your
idea
of
what
a
revelation
ought
to be.
But
this
is not
all.
There
is not
only
much
that
is
foreign,
but
much
that
is
opposed,
to
your preconceptions.
The
Jews
tolerated
slavery,
polygamy,
and
other
customs
and cruelties
of
imperfect
civilisation.
There are
the
vindictive
psalms,
too,
with
their
bitter hatred
against
enemies,
psalms
which
we
chant
in our
churches.
How can we
do so ?
There
are
stories
of
immorality,
of
treachery,
of
crime.
How
can
we
read
them?' Still
the
Bible has
been
and
is a
truly
sacred,
because a
truly
historical
book,
for there
is
nothing
more
sacred in
this
v/orld
than
the
history
of
man,
in
his
search
after
his
highest
ideals. All
ancient
books which
have
once
been
called
sacred
by
man,
will have their
lasting
place
in
the
history
of
mankind,
and
those
who
possess
the
courage,
the
perseverance,
and
the
self-denial of
the
true
miner,
and
of
the
true
scholar,
will
find
even
in
the
darkest
and dustiest
shafts
what
they
are
seeking
for,
real
nuggets
of
thought,
and
precious
jewels
of faith
and
hope.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
25/451
INTRODUCTION.
XXI
I.
THE
KAZ^A-UPANISHAD.
The
Ka^'/^a-upanishad
is
probably
more
widely
known
than
any
other
Upanishad.
It formed
part
of
the
Persian
translation,
was rendered
into
English
by
Rammohun
Roy,
and
has
since
been
frequently
quoted
by English,
French,
and German
writers
as
one
of
the
most
perfect
specimens
of
the
mystic philosophy
and
poetry
of the ancient
Hindus.
It was
in the
year
1845
that
I
first
copied
at
Berlin
the
text
of
this
Upanishad,
the
commentary
of
>Sarikara
(MS.
1
37
Chambers'^},
and
the
gloss
of
Gopalayogin (MS.
224
Cham-
bers).
The
text
and
commentary
of
5arikara
and
the
gloss
of
Anandagiri
have
since
been
edited
by
Dr.
Roer in the
Bibliotheca
Indica,
with
translation
and
notes.
There
are
other
translations,
more or
less
perfect,
by
Rammohun
Roy,
Windischmann,
Foley,
Weber,
Muir,
Regnaud,
Gough,
and
others. But
there
still
remained
many
difficult
and
obscure
portions,
and
I
hope
that
in
some at
least
of the
passages
where
I
differ
from
my
predecessors,
not
excepting
^'ankara,
I
may
have succeeded
in
rendering
the
original
meaning
of
the
author
more
intelligible
than
it
has
hitherto
been.
The
text
of
theKa//^a-upanishad
is in some
MSS.
ascribed
to
the
Ya^ur-veda.
In the
Chambers
MS.
of the
com-
mentary
also
it
is
said
to
belong
to that
Veda
^,
and
in
the
Muktikopanishad
it
stands
first
among
the
Upanishads
of
the
Black
Ya^ur-veda.
According
to
Colebrooke
(Miscel-
laneous
Essays,
I,
96,
note)
it
is referred
to
the Sama-veda
also.
Generally,
however,
it
is
counted
as
one of the
Atharva//a
Upanishads.
The reason
why
it
is
ascribed
to
the
Ya^ur-veda,
is
probably
because
the
legend
of
Na/^iketas
occurs
in
the
Brahma^a
of
the
Taittiriya
Ya^ur-veda.
Here
we
read
(111,1,8):
Va^aj-ravasa,
wishing
for
rewards,
sacrificed
all
his
'
MS.
133
is
a
mere
copy
of
MS.
127.
Yajurvede
Ka.'Aavallibhash}am.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
26/451
Xxii
UPANISHADS.
wealth.
lie
had
a
son,
called
Na/^iketas.
While
he
was
still
a
boy,
faith
entered
into
him
at
the
time
when
the
cows
that
were
to be
given
(by
his
father)
as
presents
to
the
priests,
were
brought
in.
He
said :
'Father,
to whom
wilt thou
give
me?'
He
said
so
a second and third
time.
The
father
turned
round
and
said to
him
:
'
To
Death,
I
give
thee.'
Then
a
voice
said
to
the
young
Gautama,
as he
stood
up
:
'
He
(thy
father)
said,
Go
away
to the
house
of
Death,
I
eive
thee to Death.'
Go
therefore
to
Death
when
he is
not
at
home,
and
dwell
in
his
house
for three
nights
with-
out
eating.
If
he
should
ask
thee,
'
Boy,
how
many
nights
hast
thou,
been here ?
'
say,
'
Three.' When
he
asks
thee,
'
What
didst
thou
eat the
first
night
?
'
say,
'
Thy
off-
spring.'
'
What
didst
thou
eat
the
second
night
}
'
say,
'Thy
cattle.'
'What
didst thou
eat
the
third
night?'
say, 'Thy
good
works.'
He
went
to
Death,
while
he
was
away
from
home,
and
he
dwelt
in
his
house for
three
nights
without
eating.
When
Death
returned,
he
asked :
'
Boy,
how
many nights
hast
thou
been
here?'
He
answered:
'Three.' 'What
didst
thou
eat the
first
night
?'
'
Thy
offspring.'
'
What
didst
thou
eat
the
second
night
?'
'
Thy
cattle.'
'
What
didst
thou
eat
the
third
night
?
'
'
Thy
good
works.'
Then
he
said:
'My
respect
to
thee,
O
venerable
sir
Choose
a
boon.'
'May
I
return
living
to
my
father,'
he
said.
'
Choose
a
second
boon.'
'
Tell
me
how
my
good
works
may
never
perish.'
Then
he
explained
to
him
this
Na/('iketa
fire
(sacrifice),
and
hence
his
good
works
do
not
perish.
'
Choose
a
third
boon.'
'
Tell
me
the
conquest
of
death
again.'
Then
he
explained
to
him
this
(chief)
Na^iketa
fire
(sacrifice),
and
hence
he
conquered
death
again
i.
This
story,
which
in
the
Brahma;/a
is
told in
order
to
explain
th
e
name
of
a
certain
sacrificial
ceremony
called
'
The
commentator
explains
punar-mntyu
as
the
death that
follows
after
the
present
inevitable
death.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
27/451
INTRODUCTION.
XXlll
Na/^iketa,
was used
as
a
peg
on which to
hang
the
doctrines
of
theUpanishad.
In
its
original
form
it
may
have
constituted
one
Adhyaya only,
and
the
very
fact of its division
into
two
Adhyayas
may
show
that the
compilers
of
the
Upanishad
were still
aware
of its
gradual
origin.
We
have
no
means,
however,
of
determining
its
original
form,
nor
should
we
even
be
justified
in
maintaining
that
the
first
Adhyaya
ever
existed
by
itself,
and that the second was
added at
a
much
later
time.
Whatever
its
component
elements
may
have
been
before
it was an
Upanishad,
when it was
an
Upanishad
it
consisted
of six
Vallis,
neither
more
nor less.
The name of
valli,
lit.
creeper,
as
a
subdivision
of
a
Vedic
work,
is
important.
It
occurs
again
in the
Taittiriya
Upanishads.
Professor
Weber thinks
that
valli,
creeper,
in
the
sense
of
chapter,
is
based
on
a
modern
metaphor,
and
was
primarily
intended
for
a
creeper,
attached
to the
i akhas
or branches of
the
Veda^. More
likely,
however,
it was
used
in
the same sense
as
parvan,
a
joint,
a
shoot,
a
branch,
i.
e. a division.
Various
attempts
have
been
made to
distinguish
the
more
modern
from
the more ancient
portions
of
our
Upani-
shad^.
No
doubt
there
are
peculiarities
of
metre,
gram-
mar,
language,
and
thought
which
indicate
the
more
primitive
or the
more
modern character
of certain
verses.
There
are
repetitions
which offend
us,
and there
are
several
passages
which are
clearly
taken over
from
other
Upanishads,
where
they
seem
to
have had their
original
place.
Thirty-five
years
ago,
when
I
first
worked
at
this
Upanishad,
I
saw
no
difficulty
in
re-establishing
what I
thought
the
original
text of the
Upanishad
must
have
been. I now feel that we know so
little
of
the
time
and
the
circumstances
when
these
half-prose
and half-metrical
Upanishads
were
first
put
together,
that
I
should hesitate
^
History
of
Indian
Literature,
p.
93,
note
;
p.
157.
*
Though
it
would be
unfair
to
hold
Professor
Weber
responsible
for his
remarks on
this
and
other
questions
connected
with
the
Upanishads published
many years
ago
(Indische
Studien,
1853,
p.
197),
and
though
I have
hardly
ever
thought
it
necessary
to
criticise
them,
some of
his
remarks
are
not without
their
value
even
now.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
28/451
XXIV
UPANISHADS.
before
expunging
even the
most
modern-sounding
lines
from
the
original
context
of
these
Vedantic
essays^.
The
mention
of
Dhatr/,
creator,
for
instance
(Ka^//. Up.
II,
20),
is
certainly
startling,
and seems
to
have
given
rise
to
a
very early
conjectural
emendation.
But
dhatrz
and
vidhatrz
occur
in
the
hymns
of
the
Rig-veda
(X,
82,
2),
and
in
the
Upanishads
(Maitr.
Up.
VI,
8)
;
and
Dhatr/,
as
almost a
personal deity,
is
invoked
with
Pra^apati
in
Rig-veda
X,
184,
i.
Deva,
in
the
sense of
God
(Ka//;.
Up.
II,
12},
is
equally
strange,
but
occurs
in
other
Upanishads
also
(Maitr. Up.
VI,
23
;
^veta^v.
Up.
I,
3).
Much
might
be
said
about
setu,
bridge
(Ka//^. Up.
Ill,
2
;
Mwid.
Up.
II.
2,
5),
adarja,
mirror
(Ka///.
Up.
VI,
5),
as
being
character-
istic of a
later
age.
But
setu is
not
a
bridge,
in
our
sense
of
the
word,
but
rather a
wall,
a
bank,
a
barrier,
and
occurs
frequently
in
other
Upanishads
(Maitr.
Up.
VII,
7
;
^//and.
Up.
VIII,
4 ;
BrzTi.
Up.
IV,
4, 22,
&c.),
while
adarjas,
or
mirrors,
are
mentioned
in
the
Brzhadarawyaka
and
the
wSrauta-sutras.
Till
we
know
something
more
about
the
date
of
the
first
and
the
last
composition
or
compilation
of
the
Upanishads,
how
are
we
to
tell
what
subjects
and
what
ideas
the
first
author
or
the
last
collector
was
familiar
with
?
To
attempt
the
impossible
may
seem
courageous,
but
it is
hardly
scholarlike.
With
regard
to
faulty
or
irregular
readings,
we
can
never
know
whether
they
are
due
to
the
original
composers,
the
compilers,
the
repeaters,
or
lastly
the
writers
of
the
Upani-
shads.
It is
easy
to
say
that
adrej-ya
{Uxxfid.
Up.
I,
i,
6)
ought
to
be
admya
;
but
who
would
venture
to
correct
that
form.?
Whenever
that
verse
is
quoted,
it is
quoted
with
adrejya,
not
admya.
The
commentators
themselves
tell
us
sometimes
that
certain
forms
are
either
Vedic or
due
to
carelessness
(pramadapa//.a)
;
but
that
very
fact
shows
that
such
a
form,
for
instance,
as
samiyata
{K/iknd.
Up.
I,
12,
3)
rests
on
an
old
authority.
No
doubt,
if
we
have
the
original
text
of
an
author,
and
can
prove
that
his
text
was
corrupted
by
later
compilers
^L^^^^^^^ ^'
^'
Pessimisme
Brahmanique,
Annales
du
Mus
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
29/451
INTRODUCTION.
XXV
or
copyists
or
printers,
we have
a
right
to
remove
those
later
alterations,
whether
they
be
improvements
or
corrup-
tions.
But
where,
as
in our
case,
we can never
hope
to
gain
access to
original
documents,
and where we
can
only hope,
by
pointing
out what
is
clearly
more
modern
than the
rest
or,
it
may
be,
faulty,
to
gain
an
approximate
conception
of
what the
original
composer
may
have had
in his
mind,
before
handing
his
composition
over
to
the
safe
keeping
of oral
tradition,
it
is almost a
duty
to
discourage,
as
much
as lies
in
our
power,
the
work of
reconstructing
an
old
text
by
so-called
conjectural
emendations
or
critical
omissions.
I
have
little
doubt,
for
instance,
that the three
verses
16-18
in
the first
Valli of the
Ka///a-upanishad
are
later
additions,
but
I
should
not
therefore
venture
to
remove
them.
Death
had
granted
three
boons
to
Na,^iketas,
and
no
more.
In a later
portion,
however,
of the
Upanishad
(II,
3),
the
expression
snnka
vittamayi
occurs,
which
I have
translated
by
'
the
road
which
leads
to
wealth.'
As
it
is
said
that
Na/^iketas
did
not
choose
that
srmka,
some reader
must
have
supposed
that
a
srmka
was offered
him
by
Death.
Srmka,
however,
meant
commonly
a
string
or
necklace,
and
hence
arose
the
idea that
Death must
have offered
a
neck-
lace
as
an
additional
gift
to
Na/^iketas.
Besides
this,
there
was
another
honour
done
to
Na/^iketas
by Mr/tyu,
namely,
his
allowing
the sacrifice
which
he
had
taught
him,
to
be
called
by
his
name.
This
also,
it
was
supposed,
ought
to
have
been
distinctly
mentioned
before,
and
hence
the
insertion
of
the
three
verses 16-18.
They
are
clumsily
put
in,
for
after
punar
evaha,'he
said
again/
verse
16
ought
not to have
commenced
by
tam
abravit,
'
he said to him.'
They
contain
nothing
new,
for
the
fact
that
the
sacrifice
is to
be
called
after
Na>^iketas
was
sufficiently
indicated
by
verse
19,
'This,
O
Na/^iketas,
is
thy
fire
which
leads
to
heaven,
which
thou
hast chosen
as
thy
second boon.'
But
so
anxious
was the
interpolator
to
impress
upon
his
hearers
the
fact that
the
sacrifice
should
in
future
go
by
that
name,
that,
in
spite
of the
metre,
he
inserted
tavaiva,
'of
thee
alone,'
in
verse
19.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
30/451
xxvi
UPANISHADS.
II.
THE
MUiVi^AKA-UPANISHAD.
This
is
an
Upanishad
of the
Atharva-veda. It is a
Mantra-upanishad,
i.
e.
it
has the
form of a
Mantra.
But,
as
the
commentators
observe,
though
it
is written
in
verse,
it
is
not,
Hke
other
Mantras,
to
be
used
for
sacri-
ficial
purposes.
Its
only object
is
to
teach
the
highest
knowledge,
the
knowledge
of
Brahman,
which cannot
be
obtained
either
by
sacrifices
or
by
worship
(upasana),
but
by
such
teaching only
as
is
imparted
in
the
Upanishad.
A
man
may
a
hundred
times
restrain
his
breath,
&c.,
but
without
the
Upanishad
his
ignorance
does
not cease.
Nor
is
it
right
to
continue
for
ever
in the
performance
of
sacrificial
and
other
good
works,
if
one
wishes to
obtain the
highest
knowledge
of
Brahman. The
Sannyasin
alone,
who
has
given
up
everything,
is
qualified
to know and
to
become
Brahman. And
though
it
misht
seem
from
Vedic
legends
that
Grzhasthas
also
who con-
tinued
to
live
with
their
families,
performing
all
the
duties
required
of
them
by
law,
had
been
in
possession
of
the
highest
knowledge,
this,
we are
told,
is
a
mistake.
Works
and know-
ledge
can be
as
little
together
as
darkness
and
light.
This
Upanishad
too has
been
often
translated
since it
first
appeared
in
the
Persian
translation of
Dara
Shukoh.
My
own
copy
of
the
text
and
.Sankara's
commentary
from
the
MS.
in
the
Chambers
Collection
was
made
in
October
1844.
Both
are
now
best
accessible in
the
Bibliotheca
Indica,
where
Dr.
Roer
has
published
the
text,
the
corn-
commentary
by
vSahkara,
a
gloss
by
Ananda^;7ana,
and
an
English
translation
with
notes.
The
title
of
the
Upanishad, Mwidaka,
has
not
yet
been
explained.
The
Upanishad
is
called
Mu7/^aka-upanishad,
and
its
three
chapters
are
each
called
Mu/z^akam.
Native
commentators
explain
it as
the
shaving
Upanishad,
that
is,
as
the
Upanishad
which
cuts
off
the
errors of
the
mind,
like
a
razor.
Another
Upanishad
also
is
called
Kshurika,
the
razor,
a
name
which
is
explained
in
the
text
itself
as
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
31/451
INTRODUCTION.
XXvil
meaning
an
instrument
for
removing
illusion
and
error.
The title
is
all
the
more
strange
because
Mu;/^aka,
in its
commonest
acceptation,
is
used
as
a
term
of
reproach
for
Buddhist
mendicants,
who are
called
'
Shavelings,'
in
oppo-
sition to the
Brahmans,
who
dress
their
hair
carefully,
and
often
display
by
its
peculiar
arrangement
either
their
family
or their rank.
Many
doctrines
of the
Upanishads
are,
no
doubt,
pure
Buddhism,
or
rather
Buddhism
is
on
many
points
the
consistent
carrying
out
of the
principles
laid
down
in
the
Upanishads.
Yet,
for that
very
reason,
it seems
im-
possible
that
this
should
be the
origin
of the
name,
unless
we
suppose
that
it
was
the
work of
a man
who
was,
in
one
sense,
a
Mundaka,
and
yet
faithful
to
the
Brahmanic law.
III.
THE TAITTIRIYAKA-UPANISHAD.
The
Taittiriyaka-upanishad
seems to have had
its
original
place
in
the
Taittiriya-Ara;< yaka.
This
Arauyaka.
consists,
as
Rajendralal
Mitra
has
shown
in
the Introduction
to
his
edition
of the
work
in
the Bibliotheca
Indica,
of
three
por-
tions.
Out
of its
ten
Prapa///akas,
the
first
six
form
the
Ara/zyaka proper,
or the
Karma-ka
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
32/451
XXVlii
UPANISHADS.
vSiksha-valli,
the Brahmananda-valli,
and
the
Bh/Vgu-valli^
Properly,
liowever,
it
is
only
the
second
Anuvaka
of
the
seventh
Prapa//^aka
which
deserves
and
receives in the
text
itself
the
name
of
5ikshadhyaya,
while
the rest
of the
first
Valli
ought
to
go
by
the
name
of
Sawhita-upanishad ,
or
Sawhiti-upanishad.
Sayawa^
in
his
commentary
on the
Taittiriya-ara;/yaka,
explains
the
seventh
chapter,
the
vSikshadhyaya
(twelve
anuvakas),
as
Sawhiti-upanishad.
His
commentary,
how-
ever,
is
called
5iksha-bhashya.
The
same
Saya;/a
treats the
eighth
and
ninth
Prapa///akas
as the
Varuwy-upanishad'*.
The Ananda-valli
and
Bhrzgu-valli
are
quoted
among
the
A
Upanishads
of
the Atharvaa^.
At the end
of each
Valli
there
is
an index of the
Anu-
vakas
which
it
contains.
That
at
the
end
of
the
first
Valli
is
intelligible.
It
gives
the
Pratikas,
i.
e
the initial
words,
of
each
Anuvaka,
and
states
their
number
as
twelve. At
the
end
of
the
first
Anuvaka,
we
have
the
final
words
'
satyam
vadishyami,'
and
pa/^a
/^a,
i. e. five
short
paragraphs
at
the
end.
At
the
end
of
the
second
Anuvaka,
where
we
expect
the final
words,
we have
the
initial,
i.
e.
J^iksham,
and
then
pa>7^a,
i. e.
five
sections
in
the
Anuvaka.
At
the
end
of
the
third
Anuvaka,
we have the final
words,
but
no number of
sections.
At the end
of
the
fourth
Anuvaka,
we have
the
final
words
of
the three
sections,
followed
by
one
para-
graph
;
at the
end of
the
fifth
Anuvaka,
three
final
words,
and
two
paragraphs,
though
the
first
paragraph
belongs
clearly
to
the
third
section. In
the
sixth
Anuvaka,
we
have
the
final
words
of
the
two
Anuvakas,
and
one
para-
graph.
In
the
seventh
Anuvaka,
there
is
the final
word
'
The
third
Valli
ends
with
Bhr/gur
ity
upanishat.
*
See
Taittiriyaka-upanishad,
ed.
Roer,
p.
12.
'
See
M.
M.,
Alphabetisches
Verzeichniss
der
Upanishads,
p.
144.
*
The
Anukrama'ii
of
the
Atreyi
school
(see Weber,
Indische
Studien, II,
p.
208)
of
the
Taittiriyaka
gives
likewise
the
name
of
YSiTum
to
the
eighth
and
ninth
Prapa/Aaka,
while
it
calls
the
seventh
Prapa/Aaka
the
Sawzhiti,
and
the
tenth
Prapa^Aaka
the
Y%;7iki-upanishad.
That
Anukiama}
presupposes,
how-
ever,
a
different
text,
as
may
be
seen
both
from
the
number
of
Anuvakas.
and
from
the
position
assigned
to
the
Y%wiki
as
between the
Sawhiti and
Vaiui
Upanishads.
SeeM.M.,
Alphabetisches
Verzeichniss
der
Upanishads.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
33/451
INTRODUCTION.
XXlX
sarvam,
and
one
paragraph
added.
In the
eighth
Anuvaka,
we
have
the
initial
word,
and
the
number
of
sections,
viz,
ten.
In the
ninth
Anuvaka,
there
are
the
final
words of
one
section,
and
six
paragraphs.
In
the tenth
Anuvaka,
there
is
the
initial
word,
and
the
number
of
paragraphs,
viz.
six.
In the
eleventh
Anuvaka,
we
have
the
final
words
of
four
sections,
and
seven
paragraphs,
the
first
again
forming
an
integral
portion
of
the last
section.
The twelfth
Anuvaka
has
one
section,
and
five
paragraphs.
If
five,
then
the
janti
would
here
have
to be
included, while,
from what
is said
afterwards,
it
is
clear
that
as the
first
word
of
the
Valli
is
.$-am
na/^,
so
the
last
is vaktaram.
In
the
second
Valli
the index to
each
Anuvaka
is
given
at
the
end
of the
Valli.
ist
Anuvaka
:
pratika
:
brahmavid,
and
some
other
catch-
words,
idam,
ayam,
idam.
Number
of
sections,
2i.
2nd
Anuvaka
:
pratika:
annad,
and
other
catchwords;
last
word,
-^wkkhd..
Sections,
26.
3rd
Anuvaka:
pratika:
prawam,
and other
catchwords;
last
word,
^nkkhdi.
Sections,
22,
4th
Anuvaka:
pratika:
yata/^,
and
other
catchwords;
last
word,
pu>^y^//a.
Sections,
18.
5th
Anuvaka
:
pratika
:
vi^wanam,
and other
catchwords
;
last
word,
pu/^/^/^a.
Sections,
22.
6th
Anuvaka:
pratika:
asanneva,
then
atha
(deest
in
Taitt.
Ar.
7).
Sections,
28.
7th
Anuvaka:
pratika:
asat.
Sections,
16.
8th
Anuvaka:
pratika:
bhishasmat,
and
other
catch-
words;
last
word,
upasahkramati.
Sections,
51.
9th
Anuvaka :
pratika:
yata/^
kutaj-zl'ana
;
then
tam
(deest
in Taitt.
Ar.).
Sections,
11.
In the
third
Valli the
Anukramawi
stands
at
the
end.
1.
The
first
word,
hhrigxxh,
and
some
other
catchwords.
Sections,
13.
2.
The
first
word,
annam.
Sections,
12.
3.
The first
word,
pra;/am.
Sections,
12.
4.
The first
word,
mana/^.
Sections,
12.
5.
The
first
word,
vi^/'/anam,
and
some
other
words.
Sec-
tions,
12.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
34/451
XXX
UPANISHADS.
6.
The
first
word,
ananda,
and
some
other
words.
Sec-
tions,
lO.
7.
The
first
words,
annam
na
nindyat,
pmna/i,
j-ariram.
Sections,
11.
8.
The
first
words,
annam
na
pariy^akshita,
apo ^yoti//.
Sections,
11.
9.
The
first
words,
annam
bahu
kurvita
pr/thivim
aka^a.
Sections,
11.
10.
The
first
words,
na kankana.
Sections
61.
The
last
words of
each
section
are
given
for
the
tenth Anu-
vaka.
IV.
THE
B;?/HADArAA^YAKA-UPANISHAD.
This
Upanishad
has
been so
often edited and discussed
that
it
calls
for no
special
remarks. It forms
part
of the
vSatapatha-brahma/^a.
In
the
Madhyandina-j-akha
of
that
Brahma;/a,
which has
been edited
by
Professor
Weber,
the
Upanishad,
consisting
of
six
adhyayas,
begins
with
the
fourth
adhyaya
(or
third
prapa///aka)
of the
fourteenth
book.
There
is
a
commentary
on the
Br/hadarawyaka-upanishad
by
Dvivedai-rinarayawasunu
Dvivedaganga,
which
has been
carefully
edited
by
Weber
in
his
great
edition
of
the
.S atapatha-brahma;za
from
a
MS.
in the Bodleian
Library,
formerly
belonging
to
Dr.
Mill,
in which
the
Upanishad
is
called
Madhyandiniya-brahma;^a-upanishad.
In
the
Kava-.fakha
the
Br/hadarayaka-upanishad
forms
the
seventeenth
book
of
the
5atapatha-brahmaa, consisting
of
six
adhyayas.
As
.Sankara's
commentary
and the
gloss
of
Anandatirtha,
edited
by
Dr.
Roer
in
the
Bibliotheca
Indica,
follow
the
Ka;?va-j-akha,
I
have
followed the
same text
in
my
trans-
lation.
Besides
Dr.
Roer's
edition
of
the
text,
commentary,
and
gloss
of
this
Upanishad,
there
is
Foley's
edition
of the
text.
There
is
also
a
translation
of it
by
Dr.
Roer,
with
large
extracts
from
Sankara's
commentary.
-
7/30/2019 The Upanishads, F. Max Muller, (English) 1879 VOL 2
35/451
INTRODUCTION.
XXXI
V,
THE
5VETA5VATARA-UPANISHAD.
The
vSvetaj-vatara-upanishad
has
been handed
down
as
one
of
the
thirty-three
Upanishads
of the
Taitti'riyas,
and
though
this
has
been
doubted,
no real
argument
has ever
been
brought
forward
to invalidate
the
tradition
which
represents
it
as
belonging
to
the
Taittiriya
or Black
Ya^ur-
veda.
It
is
sometimes
called
5vetajvataraam
Mantropanishad
(p.
274),
and
is
frequently
spoken
of in
the
plural,
as
.Sveta-
jvataropanishada/^.
At
the
end
of the
last
Adhyaya
we read
that
5vetaj-vatara
told
it
to
the
best